Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council considered an incident that occurred when she was working as a teacher. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council considered an incident that occurred when she was working as a teacher. She said the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to question the quality of the School’s investigation. She also complained about flaws in the LADOs handling, including an initial delay in it considering the allegation and information about her recorded incorrectly. She said the Council had not provided the opportunity to appeal the outcome of the final LADO meeting where the concern against her was substantiated. Miss X wants the Council to overturn this decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The role of the LADO is to provide oversight and guidance to employers about how to deal with allegations against people who work with children. The LADO is not responsible for completing the investigation into the allegations; that is the responsibility of the employer.
9. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaints about flaws into how the School completed its investigation into the incident. That includes how statements were collated, or information it provided to the LADO. That is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of schools.
10. We will also not investigate Miss X’s view the LADO did not challenge the School’s investigation robustly enough during the LADO process. The minutes of the initial allegations management meeting demonstrated the LADO addressed Miss X’s concern about how the School gathered the witness statement from the pupil making allegations. In terms of her wider critiques of the School’s investigation; these are a matter for the School, not the LADO.
11. The minutes demonstrate the multi-agency meetings considered information provided by Miss X, witness statements and views from the attending agencies. The outcome of the final meeting was that the allegation was substantiated; reasons for this are set out in the minutes. That decision was not made by the LADO in isolation; it was a decision made by the majority in attendance. Miss X wants the substantiated decision overturned, that is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the LADO oversaw the meetings to justify our involvement.
12. In its complaint response the Council accepted there was a short delay in it arranging the initial allegations management meeting. It also apologised for not including the word ‘alleged’ when referring to the incident, and that it incorrectly recorded Miss X used to work overseas. These minor errors are not significant enough to indicate the LADOs wider oversight of the allegations were flawed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman